Nietzsche
by DDR Freak
Summary: Xellos' moral defense, with all its philosophical terms, convoluted logic, and scathing sarcasm. The mysterious priest's own view on morality, or the lack thereof.


_Author's Note: Herein lies Xellos' defense of his own actions, in philosophical terms, complete with convoluted logic and twisted meanings. Logical, ironic, and a little bit sarcastic, not unlike the mysterious priest himself.  
.  
.  
._

Who are you to say that I am wrong?

All right, perhaps that is a terribly forceful way to start a pleasant debate. But again, I ask you- who are you to say that I have done wrong?

Where is your proof of my evils? Pain and suffering? Perhaps. However, now I must ask _you_- are _you _evil for the destruction left in your wake by your 'just' crusades? Will you spout at me your moral speeches, your holier-than-thou sermons? Will you tell me now that it is _I _who is misguided, that it is _my _moral compass that is upset?

And who are you to tell me this? By what right, divine or otherwise, are you given the privilege to dictate such? None. You _have _no right, my dearest. _None at all. _It is not your place; it is not your decision.

Evil is defined as being morally corrupt or reprehensible. Here, though, is my point to sharing this: morality is so very relative.

Morality is partly a product of your environment; instilled through authority figures, leaders, religions, parental figures. All the people of influence who have shouted in your ears since you were old enough to hear their voices, demanding a _formal conscience_, as the philosophers say. "_Thou shalt unconditionally do this, thou shalt unconditionally not do this_", all of the thou shalts and thou shalt nots that are pervasive in memory. What father does not impress his views upon the malleable psyche of his own child? The father will view it as his _right _to form and mold this tender-minded thing, all _tabula rasa _in its infancy, into a replica of himself, a pull-string puppet to effusively spout out the words he impresses into them, the words that _he _was given by his father in the innocence of youth; the rules and codes of his morality, passed like an unlooked-for heirloom of great potential worth, but being, in truth, without it. And that innocent blank-slate mind, through no fault of its own, will absorb it, carry it, reflect those ideas given to it, through its basic herd instinct of obedience to the commanding figure.

But, now, with that said, can you do this: _prove _to me your morality. Can you do that? Can you experiment on righteousness; can you measure for me justice? Can you bring me one iota of it, weigh it, present to me its basic structure? Can you? _Can _you?

Of course not. What is moral cannot be defined by empirical means. According to the esteemed A. J. Ayers, what is not defined by empirical means falls into the metaphysical; the metaphysical is indefinable, therefore meaningless.

So, in drawing a logical conclusion from that, it can be assumed that morality is, at very best, a substance left up to perspective. Moral nihilism, in one of its forms. There is no one master form of morality.

I do what I know I have to do- not even _you _can deny me that. There are times when I must manipulate; I must play on the emotions and thoughts of others to achieve my ultimate goal. Let me assert this, with all confidence- whatever I do, I believe I am doing what must be done.

Therefore, by reason of my own perspective, I cannot be morally wrong. It is what I believe to be right, given the situation, and thus you _cannot, _by any rational means, prove me to be incorrect. There is no moral absolute. What, then, will you judge me based on? If there is not one solid thing that you can reference from, then how would my position be any less substantial than your own?

Are you keeping up with me, dearest, or should I wait for you to catch up?

What wicked and salacious things I suggest! How _lewd _am I in saying that you look at reality with, as the painters say, a frog's perspective- looking up at two figures, and seeing them as seemingly from opposite sides, opposing forces, while, to one of a higher view, they can be viewed in greater sight as of the same essence. How _wicked _a thing for me to say, ne? How wicked and scandalous and _perverse _a thing, _indubitably. _If you deny that such is what you're thinking, sue your face for slander, dearest.

Morality is such an elusive thing, isn't it?

It can't be explained; it can't be described, pinpointed, accurately diagramed and labeled as THIS IS RIGHT. Is that not ironic? A concept that has been debated over for centuries upon centuries remains as unresolved as it was ages ago. And therein lies yet more support for my argument.

If there were one moral truth, something that was truly right, why _would _there be so much debate over so many topics? Capital punishment, women's rights, human rights, war; all debated, and there are still so many sides to each issue, so many different views to see from.

If right and wrong were so clear-cut, wouldn't the debaters have come to that one conclusion already? The fact that there _are _legitimate, supportable stances in such issues _proves_ that you cannot judge morality based on one doctrine.

So why do you do it to me? Why are you holding me up to your standard, when mine is different? The difference does not make _my _stance any less legitimate than yours; we are simply alternate views of the same situation.

And let's take a look at a few other things, shall we?

The _morality of timidity. _Here's yet another view of the ethics of common society- they are born of fear. Upon the establishment of a safe, comfortable social structure, a pleasant herd with its designated leaders and followers (think of it like _sheep_), the qualities in its members that will maintain that state of the community are elevated as "virtues", while those that would endanger it are slandered as evil. Unquestioned obedience becomes laudable, mediocrity becomes virtuous (quite against its original meaning- coming from _virtu_, the Renaissance idea of masculine qualities, among these being the strive for personal greatness), while the traits that raise one above the herd, beyond it, endangering it, those of ambitious personal achievement and greatness, are affirmed as the evils of the world. Thereby through this timidity within the moral structure the entire herd becomes passive, worthless, stagnant. By its own rigidity of definition, this "herd-ethics" proclaims, as a wise man called Nietzsche one wrote:

_"I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality."_

Is this stability-moral, this meek man's virtue, this anti-_virtu_, is this really the absolute morality? Is the defeat of excellence and the benefit of the community (with all its obedient sheep) the only purpose of ethics?

If so, I am glad I have no part in it.  
If that is what your morality is composed of, I am glad that I am an opposite. I am glad, then, that I am your disrupter, your unbalancer, your destroyer of peace. By my actions I even _aid _your society, albeit in a roundabout way.

Is that not morality, of a sort?

.  
.  
.

_Author's Note: I do not own Xellos or the Slayers, or the philosophical brainchildren of Nietzsche, A.J. Ayers, and any other nihilists mentioned here. My main sources were Nietzsche's The Antichrist and Beyond Good and Evil, both of which are interesting reads which I highly recommend._


End file.
